Religion Doesn’t Justify Discrimination: ACLU Files Brief in Third Contraception Rule Challenge

Another private company – this one sells lawn and snow removal equipment in Michigan – is challenging the federal rule that requires employers to provide insurance coverage for contraception without a co-pay. As we’ve written before, these cases are meritless and harken back to a time that we should not repeat. For example, in 1966, the Piggie Park restaurant in South Carolina refused to serve African-Americans because integration was against the owners’ religious beliefs. The same argument was used to try to get around equal pay and labor protections. The courts did not allow religion to justify discrimination then, and they should not do so now.  

The availability of contraception has given women the ability to make their own decisions about whether and when to have children, which in turn has allowed them to make decisions about their schooling, a particular job or career, and their families. Furthermore, the contraception rule helps to eliminate gender disparities in health costs: currently, women of child-bearing age pay significantly more for out-of-pocket costs than men, in large part because of reproductive health needs, including contraception. Denying equal access to contraception coverage discriminates against women, plain and simple.

It has never been acceptable to use religion as an excuse to discriminate. Religious beliefs can’t trump the contraception rule, which is designed to eradicate discrimination, any more than religious beliefs could trump laws designed to combat racial discrimination. Everyone has the absolute right to believe whatever they want and to act on those beliefs – unless those actions threaten the rights, welfare, and well-being of others. Women working at Weingartz Supply Company, the plaintiff in today’s case, have the right to make their own decisions about whether and when to use contraception, based on their own beliefs – not those of their bosses. The brief we filed  today urges the court to follow history and reject the company’s claims.

Learn more about contraception: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

Add a comment (3)
Read the Terms of Use

gary47290

The true flaw here is the poor public policy that keeps BC pills a prescription drug 50+ years after they were invented. They are among the safest of pharmaceuticals, and should be over the counter. We don't expect our insurance to cover bandaids, aspirin or shampoo. Why should it cover BC pills?

Me, of all people

Well, there is a difference between discrimination and abortion. As the Catholic's view abortion as murder, they are aganst it, same goes for contraceptives. I find this very puzzling for the ACLU, since they are for peoples rights. If it is the opinion of that person and their beleif, than why should that be overridden by the goverment? Isn't that why we have a first amendment? To prevent religious beliefs from being trampled?
It is more of a throwing that out there, and I'm not Catholic. But where does the ACLU stand? For religious beliefs or womens rights?

Laban Cox

Stupid

Sign Up for Breaking News